Letters, Manuscript Pose Dilemma for Media

To print or not to print is the dilemma agonizing editors on both coasts of the nation this week as they receive an unprecedented flurry of communications from the Unabomber -- and there are no easy answers.

Balancing the public's safety and right to know against any appearance of pandering to the whims of a calculating killer puts normally objective journalists in the unaccustomed, and uncomfortable, position of being directly involved in law enforcement and life-and-death decisions.

"I can't imagine a more achingly troubling ethical question," said Terry Francke, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition. "Everyone understands that the object of a terrorist is to strike terror, and for that you need the maximum publicity -- the kind you can get from newspapers."

So in that regard, printing anything from a terrorist serves his aim, good intentions or not. On the other hand, not printing it could be seen as either a bold stand against literary extortion or a dangerous challenge that could end in reactive bloodshed.

The stakes were made abundantly clear yesterday when the Unabomber sent the New York Times and the Washington Post his long-awaited, 56-page manifesto, titled "Industrial Society and its Future," and offered to cease all slayings if it is printed in full. This offers a different choice from the one posed to The Chronicle earlier this week when it received a Unabomber letter, later claimed as a ruse, threatening to blow up an airliner in Los Angeles -- but the quandary is still a painful one.

Predictably, opinions on the topic differ radically among media organizations and ethicists, as well as among law enforcement and security experts.

"To print this manuscript, even part of it, is a terrible precedent. It's like paying off hijackers," said Michael Josephson, a journalistic ethicist who has consulted for the Poynter Institute For Media Studies in Florida. "If a person knows they can extort this kind of thing out of the press, where will it stop?"

The flip side was expressed by Neil Shapiro, a San Francisco attorney specializing in media law.

Legally, a newspaper has no liability or responsibility to print a thing, said Shapiro, who often represents The Chronicle. But there is a basic human responsibility to do what you can to end terror -- even if that seems to cross the traditional dividing line between police and press.

"If you see a car bearing down on a pedestrian in the crosswalk, should you push the person out of the way? You don't have to, and you would be in your rights to watch and not act, but should you?" Shapiro said.

Editors at the Post and the Times did not return phone calls yesterday. But Times Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. said in a press statement: "The manuscript is long and we're just starting to look at it closely and study our options. There seems to be an implicit promise that bombs will not be sent while we're considering the document."

Sulzberger added: "We will act responsibly and not rashly, knowing that lives could be at stake. It seems we've been given three months to think the issues through. One issue that we find especially troubling is the demand that we not only publish the initial document but then open our pages for annual follow- ups over the next three years. Such a commitment is not easily made."

In Washington, Post Publisher Donald E. Graham said in a press statement: "The Post takes this communication very seriously. We are considering how to respond, and we are consulting with law enforcement officials."

Historically, media outlets have had varying degrees of success in cooperating with terrorists by printing their communications on the promise of some sort of action.

Throughout the 1960s and '70s, left- wing terrorist groups including the Environmental Liberation Front bombed homes, offices and power utilities, and each time issued communiques they demanded the media publish. They were mostly rebuffed except by the underground press, and bombings would continue.

However, after five newspapers including the Times printed a manifesto of "Fighters for a Free Croatia" in 1976, the authors -- a team of terrorists who had hijacked a plane and killed a New York policeman -- surrendered.

But Kenneth Solomon, a terrorism specialist with the Rand Corp. research organization, said publishing anything other than brief excerpts from plotting killers like the Unabomber is dangerous.

"The more you say, the more you propel it and encourage this guy," said Solomon, who advises police departments across the country. "It's a self-perpetuating fire."

Adding a twist to yesterday's Unabomber communications was his threat that if the Times and Post did not print his manuscript, but Penthouse magazine -- which has offered to -- did, he would cease all killings for the moment but could carry out one more deadly attack after publication.

A spokeswoman for Penthouse Publisher Bob Guccione said that as of 7:30 p.m. PST, Guccione had not received any written communication from the Unabomber. However, she said Guccione got a call earlier this week from someone who told him to expect "a package" soon from the Unabomber, although no specific arrival time was given.

It was the argument for public safety that eventually guided The Chronicle's decision to print this week's threatening letter, said Chronicle Managing Editor Dan Rosenheim. But that decision was made only after excruciating debate among senior editors, and each subsequent decision involving Unabomber material will also have to be individually assessed, he said.

"Clearly it's in everyone's interest for the Unabomber to communicate with words rather than bombs," Rosenheim said.

"We are mindful of the argument that printing such documents may provide comfort to the Unabomber and encourage copycats, but in this instance we felt that the action we took was appropriate, in the interest of public safety and citizens' right to know."